No, I wasn't among the moron throngs complaining about the prospect of a multi-racial Spider-Man. It was more a matter of my just not liking that turn in the story and feeling like the character was simply being sacrificed to provide an excuse for Marvel to market another event it could use to drive up comic sales.
But the two go hand-in-hand. The only reason he's multiracial is so they can brag about diversity. They don't actually care, they just want credit. That's what Marvel does with their comics these days. Virtually everything is a stunt. Honestly, making him black for the sake of marketing (and let's face it, that's the only reason they did) was itself a disservice to the black community.
John Stewart, a black Green Lantern worked because the Green Lantern Corps already had a history of replacements. A new black addition to the X-Men (as there have been sometimes in the past) could've worked great. Hell, Virgil Hawkins/Static is one of my favorite superheroes.
No, the problem is specifically that they replaced Spider-Man with someone black. Peter Parker is iconic, and replacing someone as major as him is going to feel like a stunt no matter who the replacement may be. The fact that the replacement is black isn't a problem because he's non-white, it's only a problem because it largely feels like that was the only reason they replaced him in the first place. Marvel wants to improve the diversity of their lineup? That's great, I'm all for it, but don't do it by replacing one of your biggest characters. It's only slightly less out of place than replacing Kal-El with a black Kryptonian would be, and obvious pandering.
P.S. Thanks
P.P.S. Why aren't there any great Mexican-American superheroes? The best I can think of is the Blue Beetle, who isn't particularly interesting.
Did anyone actually complain he was "multiracial", or was that just the spin a bunch of libtards put on the complaints about killing Peter Parker. I never read comments anywhere that were like, "A non-white Spiderman! ABOMINATION!"
Also: Of course it's about marketing. Comics are pricing themselves right out of the market. They are just way too expensive for what you are getting. When I first started hardcore collecting it was when they were $1. That puts it in early 90's. A dollar for a regular comic and two for an annual was completely worth it. Now they are $4 for regular issue of a popular book, the cost of which is the same for digital releases (despite the most costly part of the equation being taken out by digital distribution).
They need to make these crazy marketing moves to move the books that a lot of fans can't really afford. I used to read every single book Marvel put out. Now I'm down to a handful because I have monetary responsibilities that clearly need to be taken care of first. And kids can't afford to spend so much per book. You can either produce very little and charge a lot, or produce a lot and charge very little. Volume is a more sensible business practice in regards to comics.
I agree with the 3/5 score, but for different reasons. I too was against killing Peter Parker (mostly due to the way he was killed, the fact that Miles is the least interesting character in his own book doesn't help).
The book suffers from "severe Bendis-syndrome" aka. decompression. The story evolves so slowly that I almost felt cheated when I was done read. Maybe I should just wait until october to buy the story as paperback.
Do you have any evidence of this? Because the story I heard is Brian Michael Bendis was inspired by the movement however many years ago to get Donald Glover cast as Peter Parker in a new Spider-Man movie, and decided to do something about it.
Covarr said:
Why aren't there any great Mexican-American superheroes?
Because here in America, the only races we feel like talking about are white and black.
Anyway, just for the record, Miles Morales is some admittedly nonspecific form of Hispanic. So far as I know, no one ever designated his parents' national history because they are Americans and who cares about which political borders their blood originated in.
Baresark said:
Did anyone actually complain he was "multiracial," or was that just the spin a bunch of libtards put on the complaints about killing Peter Parker.
Firstly, anyone who actually uses a word like Libtards seriously is someone I have trouble taking seriously.
Second, we live in a world where people ***** about a black actor playing Heimdall, gays in the NFL, and the pledge of allegiance being recited in Arabic. Of course people actually complained about Miles Morales being multiracial. What the hell world do you live in, and why are you incapable of doing a google search before assuming people with a different political view to yours are retarded and making it up?
Firstly, anyone who actually uses a word like Libtards seriously is someone I have trouble taking seriously.
Second, we live in a world where people ***** about a black actor playing Heimdall, gays in the NFL, and the pledge of allegiance being recited in Arabic. Of course people actually complained about Miles Morales being multiracial. What the hell world do you live in, and why are you incapable of doing a google search before assuming people with a different political view to yours are retarded and making it up?
My point was that I heard no one ever complain about that, only the fact that Peter Parker was no more. Also, not too many people actually cared about the skin tone so much as separation from the source material on the Heimdall thing.
This is my issue here: You choose to see everything as an issue with race. Of course there are a bunch of racist assholes running around the world spreading their bullshit. But just because someone disagrees with something skin tone happens to be part of, doesn't mean they automatically hate people of that particular skin tone. Just because people were mad they killed off Peter Parker, DOES NOT mean that they hate multiracial people.
Libtard is a pun, not about all liberals, but about people who reduce every single issue down a hot button issue such as race. This literally has nothing to do with my political view. I know racists exist. Hell, I may even know people who I no longer consort with, who are racist.
I initially complained about Heimdall being played by Idriss Elba, yet it wasn't because I hate black people. It was because I was hung up on the fact that they departed from the source material. Like an adult, I got over it. It is rather funny how people perceived that. You can't disagree with the casting of someone without being called a racist by every corner of the internet. These conversations are traps, in the end. They kill Peter Parker and the majority of Spiderman fans are like, "WTF, new Spiderman?!?!" That gets turned into, "oh, you hate a Spanish person as Peter Parker because he can only be white!"
The internet is sometimes extremely pathetic and full of people who cherry pick what people say without paying attention to a whole message. Yes, there were people out there who hated the fact that Heimdall is played by a black buy and the new Spiderman was a Spanish guy and it was based on the fact that they hate people of other ethnic backgrounds. But to call all fans of either racist, that is a stretch and a large departure from reality.
This is the issue, why is it that writing an article about why you dont like this version of spiderman that why you felt compelled to add a "i dont like it because he is multi racial" comment? What is wrong with society that the threat of being deemed racist means we have to apologies even though there was no insult done. Just become a knee jerk reaction these days.
I initially complained about Heimdall being played by Idris Elba, yet it wasn't because I hate black people. It was because I was hung up on the fact that they departed from the source material.
I think you are defining hate as an emotional state rather than as a kind of behavior. For my part, I have no problem describing as hateful the statement, "You cannot have a job pretending to be an imaginary alien based on an imaginary god because you are the wrong skin color for it."
They kill Peter Parker and the majority of Spider-Man fans are like, "WTF, new Spider-Man?!?!" That gets turned into, "Oh, you hate a Spanish person as Peter Parker because he can only be white!"
Is this a tangent, or are you saying that has happened in this discussion?
Incidentally, Miles Morales is (partly) Hispanic. He is not Spanish. Spanish is either a language, or a description of something that originates in a nation along the southwestern end of Europe.
I initially complained about Heimdall being played by Idris Elba, yet it wasn't because I hate black people. It was because I was hung up on the fact that they departed from the source material.
I think you are defining hate as an emotional state rather than as a kind of behavior. For my part, I have no problem describing as hateful the statement, "You cannot have a job pretending to be an imaginary alien based on an imaginary god because you are the wrong skin color for it."
They kill Peter Parker and the majority of Spider-Man fans are like, "WTF, new Spider-Man?!?!" That gets turned into, "Oh, you hate a Spanish person as Peter Parker because he can only be white!"
Is this a tangent, or are you saying that has happened in this discussion?
Incidentally, Miles Morales is (partly) Hispanic. He is not Spanish. Spanish is either a language, or a description of something that originates in a nation along the southwestern end of Europe.
Hate is an emotional state that results in a kind of behavior. You can't separate the two. And you then proved my point. I say departure from source material, you classify that as racism. The behavior can only be hateful if the intent is hate/dislike/disdain/etc. The intent cannot be separated from the action. I hated the fact that they departed from source material, and in this case race was involved by happenstance. I would have been equally upset if they made Heimdall a woman because of the departure from the source material, not because a woman happened to be involved. Likewise, if Heimdall's character was originally that of a black woman, I would have been equally upset if they made it a white guy. You can minimize the argument down to sexism or racism or whatever fits the topic of the time, but you literally are not acting in service of anything but your own need to see devils where they don't exist.
That said, clearly there are plenty of actual "devils" running around in regard to this. I didn't like Obama as a presidential candidate, but I couldn't be vocal about it because the most vocal was the small group of actual racists out there who didn't want "his kind" to hold the countries highest appointed position.
As to your second statement: that is actually an argument that happened on these forums in a previous article about the multi-racial SpiderMan character, Miles Morales. I apologize if you felt that was directed at you. It was not, it was directed at the untenable situation where you are not allowed to disagree with something because there happens to be a race swap. It also came from a previous article where people were called racist because they didn't like the change.
This article proves my point quite well actually. The author has to spend the first 4 paragraphs explaining that his issues with the Mile Morales SpiderMan has nothing to do with the fact that he is a multiracial character where there was previously a white character. But, ultimately, this is a change in the Ultimate Universe canon. He shouldn't have to make any statements saying the new character race has nothing to do with the things he doesn't like. He should just be able to dislike something without being called a racist from moment one. Now, if he went on to use racial derogatory terms in description of the character, clearly he would be insanely racist about it, regardless of his opening statement.
I do believe that my original point, in the beginning, was actually questioning if anyone actually said anything about having an issue with a multi-racial character, or if there was actually an issue because of killing off Peter Parker.
I can dismiss the emotional component as completely irrelevant, though. As an invisible and completely subjective phenomenon, you can insist all day and night that you're feeling it or not feeling it, and it will remain a completely unprovable point except to the degree that the audience assigns you credibility. I don't care if what you are or aren't feeling inside the inviolate privacy of your skull is an emotion you describe as hate. I care that you think (or thought; I'm not clear on whether you still hold this belief) that black people should not be allowed to play a specific alien.
Baresark said:
And you then proved my point. I say departure from source material, you classify that as racism.
Yes, I know. That was pretty much my entire premise. If your sole reason for disqualifying a dude is that his skin is the wrong color, then yeah, that is a negative response not to his abilities as an actor but to his race. It's pretty much the definition of racism.
Baresark said:
That is actually an argument that happened on these forums in a previous article about the multi-racial SpiderMan character, Miles Morales. I apologize if you felt that was directed at you.
Not me specifically. I just wondered if it was related to the current discussion, or if it was trying to rehash a past one.
Baresark said:
This article proves my point quite well actually. The author has to spend the first four paragraphs explaining that his issues with the Mile Morales Spider-Man has nothing to do with the fact that he is a multiracial character where there was previously a white character.
I happen to have a copy of the Amazing Spider-Man #1 near to hand. It opens with a violent heist taking place on a crowded New York street. It's somewhat difficult to tell race based on Humberto Ramos's anime-inspired style, but in all those panels I count two black people, one woman who could be Latina or Indian or Middle Eastern, and twenty-seven white people.
When the camera shot goes to a nearby office building, I see one black guy and five white people.
When the scene changes to a press conference, I see two black guys and six white people.
Welcome to the culture surrounding American comics. Casual, subconscious racism is not a resolved issue here.
Baresark said:
He should just be able to dislike something without being called a racist from moment one.
That said, clearly there are plenty of actual "devils" running around in regard to this. I didn't like Obama as a presidential candidate, but I couldn't be vocal about it because the most vocal was the small group of actual racists out there who didn't want "his kind" to hold the countries highest appointed position.
Yeah, you see, it's not that you "couldn't" be vocal about it, it's that you chose not to be. Either from an inability to vocalize your position without sounding stupid or racist or from a lack of courage to hold an opinion that people may have a knee-jerk reaction to. The same goes for the author of the story, he is just a bad writer. If he can't form an opinion bravely without setting it up forever for morons... but I actually think this writer is bad because he put that stuff in to elicit a racial conversation about Miles Morales because he can't be bothered to write an interesting piece on him. He falls onto race mentioning because he sucks.
I honestly don't know how to respond to that. I wouldn't be because as soon as I said something some idiot was like, "Yeah! We don't want any *N*'s in office". And then I'm all of the suddenly a racist because some idiot racist agreed with me. So, yeah, I couldn't without being lumped in with a bunch of hick racists. I mean, I didn't vote for the guy. But I can't say he is doing a bad job really. My issue was that I didn't think his administration would be different from GWB's. But it turns out hick racist assholes love GWB, so that is a dead end.
There is no discussion happening here. Your viewpoint is your viewpoint. I can live with that. I think it's OK to like the source material and want to see it faithfully recreated in another media. You can call it racism all you want. I don't really care.
Though your example of what is happening in background of the comic is completely irrelevant. I don't see any comic as a faithful representation of any part of reality. The point is that it's not, because then we wouldn't have super heroes.
No, the problem is specifically that they replaced Spider-Man with someone black. Peter Parker is iconic, and replacing someone as major as him is going to feel like a stunt no matter who the replacement may be. The fact that the replacement is black isn't a problem because he's non-white, it's only a problem because it largely feels like that was the only reason they replaced him in the first place. Marvel wants to improve the diversity of their lineup? That's great, I'm all for it, but don't do it by replacing one of your biggest characters. It's only slightly less out of place than replacing Kal-El with a black Kryptonian would be, and obvious pandering.
Funnily enough, the black Superman was actually met with less hostility[footnote]admittedly, he didn't replace the main continuity's Supes, but neither did Miles[/footnote]. Or, for that matter, Steel if you wish to count him. I mean, back when Superman "died," there was massive speculation he would be the "legit" replacement for Superman.
P.P.S. Why aren't there any great Mexican-American superheroes? The best I can think of is the Blue Beetle, who isn't particularly interesting.
....No, seriously, I think that's kind of the point. Marvel has a pretty shitty history introducing minorities. A lot of their black characters seemed to exist for blacksloitation purposes alone. Which actually brings me back to your earlier complaint. I don't think this is simply to show diversity. Marvel's done that a lot in the past and we've seen what it looks like. Also, I'd attest that John Stewart worked because he wasn't, far as I know, simply "black version of character." This ended up working to the favour of a couple of Marvel characters as well, including James Rhodes (though I don't know how he started off in the earliest days of the character).
Whether or not you like him personally, Miles has been fairly well-received. This isn't the hallmark of one of Marvel's cash-ins. They tend to be dropped entirely, or rarely referenced. Bantam did show up in Civil War, though. Briefly.
Baresark said:
I never read comments anywhere that were like, "A non-white Spiderman! ABOMINATION!"
Yes, it really happened. Though I'm not sure the word "abomination" was ever uttered.
Libtard is a pun, not about all liberals, but about people who reduce every single issue down a hot button issue such as race. This literally has nothing to do with my political view. I know racists exist. Hell, I may even know people who I no longer consort with, who are racist.
Then you're redefining the term. It's a derogatory word for liberals. If you want your own definitions, that's fine. But don't be surprised when people challenge you on them. Especially if it's a term coined to slur a group or one whose popular use is to do the same. It sounds like when people try and argue "******" doesn't mean black people, it just means lazy people and that's totes not racist and you should have known that before you complained about me saying it.
The author has to spend the first 4 paragraphs explaining that his issues with the Mile Morales SpiderMan has nothing to do with the fact that he is a multiracial character where there was previously a white character.
And why does he need to do that? Because he doesn't want to be associated with the people who complained specifically about a black/hispanic guy taking over. He's addressing a real issue, not the PC police or "libtards" or whatever word you might choose.
JimB said:
Yes, I know. That was pretty much my entire premise. If your sole reason for disqualifying a dude is that his skin is the wrong color, then yeah, that is a negative response not to his abilities as an actor but to his race. It's pretty much the definition of racism.
Slight tangent, but this reminds me of the outcry over the Hunger Games "making" Rue and the other tribute from her district black. Except they were black in the book. Also, Lenny Kravitz as Cinna was an issue. And they never specify his skin tone, so he could have been played by a white man, but there was never a necessity for it.
So we get crap like:
And
Not to mention
Oddly, nobody was too upset that they turned Catnap into a white girl.
I honestly don't know how to respond to that. I wouldn't be because as soon as I said something some idiot was like, "Yeah! We don't want any *N*'s in office". And then I'm all of the suddenly a racist because some idiot racist agreed with me. So, yeah, I couldn't without being lumped in with a bunch of hick racists. I mean, I didn't vote for the guy. But I can't say he is doing a bad job really. My issue was that I didn't think his administration would be different from GWB's. But it turns out hick racist assholes love GWB, so that is a dead end.
I don't know why you're getting this, but I've never been called a racist or lumped in with racists for being critical of Obama's policies. I did vote for him--both terms--but I'm still heavily critical of a laundry list of terrible things he's done, as well as things he terribly hasn't done. I am, however, rather suspicious it might have to do with your diction as mentioned before.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
